> -----Original Message----- > From: 'Christoph Hellwig' [mailto:hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 2:55 PM > To: Steve Wise > Cc: 'Jason Gunthorpe'; 'Sagi Grimberg'; 'Steve Wise'; 'Tom Talpey'; 'Doug Ledford'; 'Christoph Hellwig'; sagig@xxxxxxxxxxxx; > ogerlitz@xxxxxxxxxxxx; roid@xxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; eli@xxxxxxxxxxxx; target-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Oren Duer' > Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/5] RDMA/core: Transport-independent access flags > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 02:32:31PM -0500, Steve Wise wrote: > > You mean "should not", yea? > > > > Ok. I'll check for iWARP. But don't tell me to remove the transport-specific hacks in this series when I post it! ;) > > Just curious if there are any holes in this little scheme to deal with > the lkey mess: > > (1) make sure all drivers that currently do not set > IB_DEVICE_LOCAL_DMA_LKEY but which can safely use ib_get_dma_mr > call it underneath at device setup time, and tear it down before > removal. > (2) now ULD can check for IB_DEVICE_LOCAL_DMA_LKEY and use local_dma_lkey > in that case, or will have to perform a per-IO MR with LOCAL and > REMOTE flags if not > (3) remove insecure remote uses of ib_get_dma_mr from ULDs > (4) remove ib_get_dma_mr from the public API > Perhaps I missed some of the discussion on all this, but what is the point of #1? Are these 4 steps intended to be (bisectable) steps / commits with the goal of removing ib_get_dma_mr()? If so I still don't get #1. Steve. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
